In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7.
As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.

Devil's advocate:
But then, once "El Capitan" is deep-6'ed, then there is a power vacuum. Not usually something you want to have in a crisis.
Then the strong vie for power, things can get ugly, the boat could capsize, killing all or most.
Or then, once a new leader 'seats' him/herself, what is to say that the whole process will not repeat itself, meanwhile precious planning for survival time is lost?

The Torture of the Mad Bomber, ct. Clint Eastwood's movie, Dirty Harry. Now, however, after 9/11/01, we have the case of terrorist suspects who may know of planned operations that could cost the lives of thousands. The otherwise four-square civil libertarian and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has actually suggested legalized torture to deal with such people.

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
What if the bomb was a nuke?

the moral dilema would no longer be the captains , he made a moral act

as for who would lead it would be the captain , the other moral people inspired by the captains example then too , would have to make the supreme sacrafice until numbers where appropriate !!!

Or are you saying that in this situation there is more to it than morals and ethics ? , and sometimes extreme situations have no moral or ethical solutions ? , maybe there are shades of grey where one can only do ones best , and be damned to hell for all eternity for being fallible and human

The law also allows leeway to people who act under emergency circumstances that they did not create.

Ordinarily, if the emergency arises suddenly and unexpectedly, requires immediate action without time for deliberation-- or appears to require immediate action -- and was not caused by the negligence of the person whose conduct is being judged, the jury will be instructed that they should take the emergency circumstances into account.

While instructions vary substantially from place to place, the intent of the instruction is to inform jurors that an instinctive reaction is not negligent under emergency circumstances.

The emergency doctrine, along with Good Samaritan laws and the rescuer concept, help to shield people who assist drivers in trouble. The emergency doctrine is also applicable in vessel collision cases, if the accident happens fast enough.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum